How should we treat trans people?

[coffeeplease16]

I have been browsing the feminist thread with interest and been reading lots of arguments that accepting trans = encroaching on women’s rights and women’s only spaces. If you yourself believe that you can’t change sex, and being a women = having a vagina - how do you think we should include trans people in our society? I am genuinely interested, and not meaning to be goady. What is the ideal - how can we protect the rights of women without ostracising trans people from our society?

Those terms are colloquially used to denote respect (at least in the US).

Yes. They're called honorifics for a reason.

Unless of course Decomposing has redefined that word as well.

If you don’t believe there’s such a thing as gender identity

This is deliberate obfuscation of language.

They're talking about gendered identity-formation.

Gendered. Not gender.

Identity-formation in response to gendered socialisation? Yes, that happens. Innate and inborn gender? Does not.

I just can never seem to break out of the loop: "in what way are they women?"
"By way of their gender identity"
"What is a gender identity?"
"The way in which they are a woman"

fields has introduced "sharing a physical characteristic/s" as another way but surely that can't apply to the many TW who don't undergo any physical transition?

hooowl look upthread; I answered you already.

Will have another go though.

They believe they have the mindset they believe is unique to women; because they believe their mindset disqualifies them from being men.

Their mindset may not be consciously and deliberately typical-alpha-male, their life experiences may mean typical-alpha-male is never going to be a possibility - but this does not mean they have "typical-female minds" because there's no such thing.

tyro thank you, I do appreciate and like your posts but i will be honest and say they don't often make things clearer to me! I'm sure it's just communication styles etc, I used to work with someone similar (but with work-related subjects), just never sure I understood what he was saying - it's likely me.

I think you are saying because they feel feminine rather than masculine, and erroneously believe that femininity is either necessary or sufficient to be a woman, when it is neither.

(and that it is mutually exclusive from being male)

Not quite, hooowl.

It's more that they feel unmasculine.

But being an unmasculine man is difficult, and attracts negative attention from other men. Reconceptualising the self as feminine is an attempt to reconcile the dissonance of never fitting comfortably in the "man" box.

It's a very narcissistic way of thinking, unfortunately, because it involves requiring the rest of the world to interpret everything through the preferred lens of the "unmasculine" male.

And, of course, it falls down at the first feminist hurdle. Men who do not perform hypermasculine behaviours are still men.

If men who do not perform masculine behaviours are not men, then logically women who do not perform feminine behaviours are not women. I am therefore forced to redefine myself as some sort of unsexed ethereal being attached to an abused female body.

And, of course, it means everyone else who doesn't perform femininity to men's satisfaction is fair game for corrective rape, because they're not "real women" and so don't count.

It's a thoroughly revolting logic train, if you can stop thinking about the poor males and consider the female experience instead.

The female equivalent basically involves being repeatedly traumatised by dicks and trying to escape it by saying "please stop kicking me for not performing femininity; look, I'll even cut my tits off if it helps." Except mostly we're not quite narcissistic enough to insist everyone reconceptualises their own identities to accommodate us.

Yes I can see that’s very traumatic StopThePlanet. Very upsetting. We can all only do what we feel is the right thing to do. You have to do what you need to survive, that’s understood.

Or share a bed with John and their erect penis on a drunken works night out?

You have some weird works nights out if they end with you in bed with a colleague of either sex.

"in what way are they women?"
"By way of their gender identity"
"What is a gender identity?"
"The way in which they are a woman"

Tease out the implication here.

If the harsh realities of sexual conditioning don't 'take' well enough to allow the female to perform sexually-submissive domestic-appliance emotional-caretaker behaviours to the 'required' standards, she is denied access to the identity "woman". She is simply a defective female.

If she identifies herself as a woman on the grounds of her female body despite the gendered socialisation she has been traumatised by, she is not only defective but also transphobic.

Like I said, it's a revolting logic train. And fucking offensive to all females, including transmen.

What of the autonomy of identity of all the females who will not submit to feminine socialisation?

Being polite and courteous isn’t exclusively female socialisation though. Men are required to be equally courteous (or play along as you might call it).

What are we supposed to reconceptualise ourselves as, to accommodate bodies-with-penises?

You don’t have to. You can go on believing what you want and conceptualising yourself however you like surely?

You don’t have to. You can go on believing what you want and conceptualising yourself however you like surely?

Okay.

I believe I'm a woman regardless of my gendered experiences, because my body is female.

This means I am categorised as a bigot fit only for the gulag.

I believe I should have access to female-only spaces on the grounds of my female body.

This means I am categorised as a bigot fit only for the gulag.

I am denied the opportunity to exercise my human right to participate in public life, because their belief trumps mine.

I am denied the opportunity to define myself within the terms of my own experience, because their belief trumps mine.

I am denied the opportunity to heal from maleadult-on-femalechild sexual violence, because their belief trumps mine.

I am not talking about the requirement to treat others courteously. This is human socialisation. I am talking about gendered socialisation, specifically, the expectations placed on female bodies and female minds to behave and perform and think and be sexually available in ways which suit men.

I generally think gender roles are largely subjective so don't tend to comment too much on what's a 'boy' thing and what's a 'girl' thing but:

"Men are required to be equally courteous (or play along as you might call it)."

One of the most openly rude, discourteous men I've ever seen is President of the US. Females are held to a MUCH higher standard, "decorum"-wise.
(KF vs Mumsnet springs to mind as well...!)

Yes women are held to a higher standard of decorum... and are pressured to present as ‘decorative objects’ by the patriarchy as opposed to men who can look or behave how they like.

I meant that in every day life men are also required not to misgender etc.

Why are we discussing gender identities and courtesy? Women's rights and protections have nothing whatsoever to do with how you feel about your inner essence, or your personality quirks, or your appearance. They're also not about courtesy. That's why they encompass all women. They just don't encompass men, whatever those men feel like, and whatever they have done to their bodies because of their view of themselves. This isn't remotely complicated.

It also hinges on the acceptance of the concept of gender identity

What are the characteristics of a woman’s gender identity? What are the characteristics of a man’s?

If you don’t want to answer this question, maybe have a little think about why

What are the characteristics of a woman’s gender identity?

I'm bouncing up and down on the edge of my seat with my hand in the air here. Note to self: shut up and let the rest of the class speak.

By debating whether they are women or not is essentially asking are they valid as women. It’s debating their existence because if they say they really are women and you say they are not, you’re basically saying that what they say they are, doesn’t actually exist

The simple, unvarnished truth is that men are not women, and males cannot become females. it is impossible. That some people like to think of themselves in a certain way does not mean that the whole of society has to accept an essentially false premise - purely in order to protect someone's fragile sense of self.

Nobody ceases to exist just because the whole world does not reflect back to them what they believe to be true. As human beings we all have to live wit such dissonance and build a sense of self and ego that is not so precious and easily broken. If it is so fragile, it suggests that it has no real root, or strength, to begin with.

Men are required to be equally courteous (or play along as you might call it).

Well, tell the ones who don't identify as trans to be welcoming to their non-conforming brethren. Then tell the ones who do identify as trans to respect women's rights and stay out of their spaces.

Why not impose that sort of courtesy?

Ignoring any (really fucking dull) TRA word salads I’m simply not going to start calling a bloke “she”.

That’s what is meant by that casual little phrase “misgendering”, yes?

I’m not pointing and sniggering or being discourteous, if someone is gender ambiguous I’ll compromise by saying “they” or ideally their preferred name or nickname.

Otherwise it’s all a bit Emperors New Clothes isn’t it? Very Orwellian and Brave New World. Reappropriation of language.

I also don’t feel comfortable sharing a hostel room or private space with a penis/cock/dick possessing blokey McBlokefaced bloke who is clearly not a vagina/cunt possessing woman and obviously a manly Mcmanfaced man man.

It’s not just the definition of women, it’s the definition of men as well. You don’t have to have a penis or a Y chromosome to be a man nowadays you know!

Don't be ridiculous! Can you even hear yourself? what you are saying is so regressive. It is as if the women's movement and the gay liberation movements never happened.

It is almost as if this is a spoof account I'm responding to.

But these days there is more than one way to be a woman. It just makes them a different type of woman

You make it sound as if you have stumbled upon something mind-blowing..... Of course there are multiple ways of 'being a woman' because women, apart from what unites them ( their sex class) are all different. Men cannot become women, except in their imagination.

I’m not trying to change any of your minds. I can see the logical consistency in your arguments. One way or another everyone has to try and get on somehow

The best way to do that is for you to accept material reality, and then campaign for your own spaces. Spaces in which you can feel validated, safe and confirmed.

It is outrageous and disrespectful in the extreme to try to suggest that being a woman is just something in someone's ( a man's) head.

It also hinges on the acceptance of the concept of gender identity

Precisely! And most people do not accept that such a thing exists. It is a fairly modern invention that arose out of Queer Theory in the 1980s/90s.

What a precarious position to be in - to only feel that you can exist if everyone/the world pretends to go along with this idea.

Personally I don’t believe that someone who is more comfortable with breasts and a surgically fashioned vulva can be said to be a man. It doesn’t fit my definition of ‘man’

Male, then. They are still male.

The problem seems to be with your definitions of what 'a man' is like, or what a man must think, feel etc.